Gas prices are high and I've been hearing a lot of bitching, boycott scheming, etc.
Personally, I'm all for paying the true cost of gas at the pump. Until American consumers start paying closer to the true cost we are going to continue to put off seriously seeking alternatives.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, October 3, 2011
Food And Climate Change
This is an EXCELLENT article from Grain!!
Food and climate change: The forgotten link
GRAIN | 28 September 2011 | Against the grain
Food is a key driver of climate change. How our food gets produced and how it ends up on our tables accounts for around half of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. Chemical fertilizers, heavy machinery and other petroleum-dependant farm technologies contribute significantly. The impact of the food industry as a whole is even greater: destroying forests and savannahs to produce animal feed and generating climate-damaging waste through excess packaging, processing, refrigeration and the transport of food over long distances, despite leaving millions of people hungry.
A new food system could be a key driver of solutions to climate change. People around the world are involved in struggles to defend or create ways of growing and sharing food that are healthier for their communities and for the planet. If measures are taken to restructure agriculture and the larger food system around food sovereignty, small scale farming, agro-ecology and local markets, we could cut global emissions in half within a few decades. We don’t need carbon markets or techno-fixes. We need the right policies and programmes to dump the current industrial food system and create a sustainable, equitable and truly productive one instead.
Food and climate: piecing the puzzle together
Most studies put the contribution of agricultural emissions – the emissions produced on the farm - at somewhere between 11 and 15% of all global emissions.[1] What often goes unsaid, however, is that most of these emissions are generated by industrial farming practices that rely on chemical (nitrogen) fertilizers, heavy machinery run on petrol, and highly concentrated industrial livestock operations that pump out methane waste.
The figures for agriculture's contribution also often do not account for its role in land use changes and deforestation, which are responsible for nearly a fifth of global GHG emissions.[2] Worldwide, agriculture is pushing into savannas, wetlands, cerrados and forests, plowing under huge amounts of land. The expansion of the agricultural frontier is the dominant contributor to deforestation, accounting for between 70-90% of global deforestation.[3] This means that some 15-18% of global GHG emissions are produced by land-use change and deforestation caused by agriculture. And here too, the global food system and its industrial model of agriculture are the chief culprits. The main driver of this deforestation is the expansion of industrial plantations for the production of commodities such as soy, sugarcane, oilpalm, maize and rapeseed.
Since 1990, the area planted with these five commodity crops grew by 38%[4] though land planted to staple foods like rice and wheat declined.
Emissions from agriculture account for only a portion of the food system's overall contribution to climate change. Equally important is what happens from between the time food leaves the farm until it reaches our tables.
Food is the world's biggest economic sector, involving more transactions and employing more people by far than any other. These days food is prepared and distributed using enormous amounts of processing, packaging and transportation, all of which generateGHG emissions, although data on such emissions are hard to find. Studies looking at the EU conclude that about one quarter of overall transportation involves commercial food transport[5] The scattered figures on transportation available for other countries, such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, indicate that the percentage is even higher in non-industrialised countries, where food production and delivery accounts for 60-80% of the total energy - human plus animal plus fuel – used.”[6] With transportation accounting for 25% of global GHG emissions, we can use the EU data to conservatively estimate that the transport of food accounts for at least 6% of global GHG emissions. When it comes to processing and packaging, again the available data is mainly from the EU, where studies show that the processing and packaging of food accounts for between 10-11% of GHG emissions,[7] while refrigeration of food accounts for 3-4% [8]of total emissions and food retail another 2%.[9]
Playing it conservative with the EU figures and extrapolating from the scarce figures that exist for other countries, we can estimate that at least 5-6% of emissions are due to food transport, 8-10% due to food processing and packaging, around 1-2% due to refrigeration, and 1-2% due to retail. This gives us a total contribution of 15-20% of global emissions from these activities.
Not all of what the food system produces gets consumed. The industrial food system discards up to half of all the food that it produces, in its journey from farms to traders, to food processors, to stores and supermarkets. This is enough to feed the world’s hungry six times over.[10] A lot of this waste rots away on garbage heaps and landfills, producing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Different studies indicate that somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5 of global GHG emissions come from waste, and that over 90% of them come from materials originating in agriculture and their processing.[11] This means that the decomposition of organic waste originating in food and agriculture is responsible for 3-4% of global GHG emissions.
Add the above figures together, factor up the evidence, and there is a compelling case that the current global food system, propelled by an increasingly powerful transnational food industry, is responsible for around half of all human produced greenhouse gas emissions: anywhere between a low of 44% to a high of 57%. The graph below illustrates the conclusion:
Turning the food system upside down
Clearly, we will not get out of the climate crisis if the global food system is not urgently and dramatically transformed. The place to start is with the soil.
Food begins and ends with soil. It grows out of the soil and eventually goes back in it to enable more food to be produced. This is the very cycle of life. But in recent years humans have ignored this vital cycle. We have been taking from the soil without giving back.The industrialisation of agriculture, starting in Europe and North America, replicating later through the Green Revolution in other parts of the world, was based on the assumption that soil fertility could be maintained and increased through the use of chemical fertilisers. Little attention was paid to the importance of organic matter in the soil.
A wide range of scientific reports indicate that cultivated soils have lost from 30 to 75% of their organic matter during the 20th century, while soils under pastures and prairies have typically lost up to 50%. There is no doubt that these losses have provoked a serious deterioration of soil fertility and productivity, as well as contributing to worsening droughts and floods.
Taking as a basis some of the most conservative figures provided by scientific literature, the global accumulated loss of soil organic matter over the last century may be estimated to be between 150 to 200 billion tonnes.[12] Not all this organic matter ended up in the air as CO2, as significant amounts have been washed away by erosion and have been deposited in the bottom of rivers and oceans. However, it can be estimated that at least 200 to 300 billion tonnes of CO2 have been released to the atmosphere due to the global destruction of soil organic matter. In other words, 25 to 40% of the current excess of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the destruction of soils and its organic matter.
There is some good news hidden in these devastating figures. The CO2 that we have sent into the atmosphere by depleting the world's soils can be put back into the soil. All that is required is a change of agricultural practices. We have to move away from practices that destroy organic matter to practices that build-up the organic matter in the soil.
We know this can be done. Farmers around the world have been engaging in these very practices for generations. GRAIN research has shown that, if the right policies and incentives were in place worldwide, soil organic matter contents could be restored to pre-industrial agriculture levels within a period of 50 years – which is roughly the same time frame that industrial agriculture took to reduce it.[13] The continuing use of these practices would allow the offset of between 24-30% of current global annual GHG emissions[14].
The new scenario would require a radical change in approach from the current industrial agriculture model. It would focus on the use of techniques such as diversified cropping systems, better integration between crop and animal production, increased incorporation of trees and wild vegetation, and so on. Such an increase in diversity would, in turn, increase the production potential, and the incorporation of organic matter would progressively improve soil fertility, creating virtuous cycles of higher productivity and higher availability of organic matter. The capacity of soil to hold water would increase, which would mean that excessive rainfall would lead to fewer, less intense floods and droughts. Soil erosion would become less of a problem. Soil acidity and alkalinity would fall progressively, reducing or eliminating the toxicity that has become a major problem in tropical and arid soils. Additionally, increased soil biological activity would protect plants against pests and diseases. Each one of these effects implies higher productivity and hence more organic matter available to soils, thus making possible, as the years go by, higher targets for soil organic matter incorporation. More food would be produced in the process.
To be able to do it, we would need to build on the skills and experience of the world's small farmers, rather than undermining them and forcing them off their lands, as is now the case.
A global shift towards an agriculture that builds up organic matter in the soil would also put us on a path to removing some of the other major sources of GHGs from the food system. There are three other mutually reinforcing shifts that need to take place in the food system to address its overall contribution to climate change: The first is a shift to local markets and shorter circuits of food distribution, which will cut back on transportation and the need for packaging, processing and refrigeration. The second is a reintegration of crop and animal production, to cut back on transportation, the use of chemical fertilisers and the production of methane and nitrous oxide emissions generated by intensive meat and dairy operations. And the third is the stopping of land clearing and deforestation, which will require genuine agrarian reform and a reversal of the expansion of monoculture plantations for the production of agrofuels and animal feed.
If the world gets serious about putting these four shifts into action, it is quite possible that we can cut global GHG emissions in half within a few decades and, in the process, go a long way towards resolving the other crises affecting the planet, such as poverty and hunger. There are no technical hurdles standing in the way-- the knowledge and skills are in the hands of the world's farmers and we can build on that. The only hurdles are political, and this is where we need to focus our efforts.
Notes
[1] The IPCC says 10-12%, the OECD says 14% and the WRI says 14.9%. See:
- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Chapter 8: Agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/ms4mzb
- Wilfrid Legg and Hsin Huang. OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Climate change and agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/5u2hf8k
- WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe
[2] See: WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe And: IPCC. 2004. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: 3.4.2 Consequences of Land-use Change. http://tinyurl.com/6lduxqy
[3] See FAO Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products – Forty ninth Session – Bakubung, South Africa, 10 June 2008; and M. Kanninen et al., "Do trees grow on Money? Forest Perspective 4, CIFOR, Jakarta, 2007.
[4] See: GRAIN, 'Global Agribusiness: two decades of plunder', in: Seedling, July 2010.
[5] see: Eurostat. From farm to fork - a statistical journey along the EU's food chain - Issue number 27/2011 http://tinyurl.com/656tchm and http://tinyurl.com/6k9jsc3
[6] FAO. Stephen Karekezi and Michael Lazarus, Future energy requirements for Africa’s agriculture. Chapters 2, 3, and 4. http://www.fao.org/docrep/V9766E/v9766e00.htm#Contents
[7] For EU, see: Viktoria BOLLA, Velina PENDOLOVSKA, Driving forces behind EU-27 greenhouse gas emissions over the decade 1999-2008. Statistics in focus 10/2011. http://tinyurl.com/6bhesog
[8] Tara Garnett and Tim Jackson, Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of SurreyFrost Bitten: an exploration of refrigeration dependence in the UK food chain and its implications for climate policywww.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/Frostbitten%20paper.pdf
[9] S.A. Tassou, Y. Ge, A. Hadawey, D. Marriott. Energy consumption and conservation in food retailing. Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 147-156 AND Kumar Venkat. CleanMetrics Corp. The Climate Change Impact of US Food Waste
CleanMetrics Technical Brief. www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/ClimateChangeImpactofUSFoodWaste.pdf and Ioannis Bakas, Copenhagen Resource Institute (CRI). Food and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/KU_Food_GHG_emissions.pdf
[10] Tristram Stuart, “Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal”, Penguin, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/m3dxc9
[11] Jean Bogner, et. al. Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: conclusions and strategies from the IPCC. Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation) http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/26/1/11.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc
[12] Figures used for calculations were:
a) an average loss of 4,5- 6 kg of SOM/m2 of arable land and 2-3 kg of SOM/m2 of agricultural land under prairies and not cultivated
b) an average soil depth of 30 cm, with an average soil density of 1 gr/cm3
c) 5000 million ha of agricultural land worldwide; 1800 million ha of arable land, as stated by FAO
d) a ratio of 1,46 kg of CO2 for each kg of destroyed SOM
[13] See: 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009. http://www.grain.org/e/735
[14] The conclusion is based on the assumption that organic matter incorporation would reach an annual global average rate of 3.5 to 5 tonnes per hectare of agricultural land. For more detailed calculations, see: GRAIN, 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009, table 2.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Food and climate change: The forgotten link
GRAIN | 28 September 2011 | Against the grain
Food is a key driver of climate change. How our food gets produced and how it ends up on our tables accounts for around half of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. Chemical fertilizers, heavy machinery and other petroleum-dependant farm technologies contribute significantly. The impact of the food industry as a whole is even greater: destroying forests and savannahs to produce animal feed and generating climate-damaging waste through excess packaging, processing, refrigeration and the transport of food over long distances, despite leaving millions of people hungry.
A new food system could be a key driver of solutions to climate change. People around the world are involved in struggles to defend or create ways of growing and sharing food that are healthier for their communities and for the planet. If measures are taken to restructure agriculture and the larger food system around food sovereignty, small scale farming, agro-ecology and local markets, we could cut global emissions in half within a few decades. We don’t need carbon markets or techno-fixes. We need the right policies and programmes to dump the current industrial food system and create a sustainable, equitable and truly productive one instead.
Food and climate: piecing the puzzle together
Most studies put the contribution of agricultural emissions – the emissions produced on the farm - at somewhere between 11 and 15% of all global emissions.[1] What often goes unsaid, however, is that most of these emissions are generated by industrial farming practices that rely on chemical (nitrogen) fertilizers, heavy machinery run on petrol, and highly concentrated industrial livestock operations that pump out methane waste.
The figures for agriculture's contribution also often do not account for its role in land use changes and deforestation, which are responsible for nearly a fifth of global GHG emissions.[2] Worldwide, agriculture is pushing into savannas, wetlands, cerrados and forests, plowing under huge amounts of land. The expansion of the agricultural frontier is the dominant contributor to deforestation, accounting for between 70-90% of global deforestation.[3] This means that some 15-18% of global GHG emissions are produced by land-use change and deforestation caused by agriculture. And here too, the global food system and its industrial model of agriculture are the chief culprits. The main driver of this deforestation is the expansion of industrial plantations for the production of commodities such as soy, sugarcane, oilpalm, maize and rapeseed.
Since 1990, the area planted with these five commodity crops grew by 38%[4] though land planted to staple foods like rice and wheat declined.
Emissions from agriculture account for only a portion of the food system's overall contribution to climate change. Equally important is what happens from between the time food leaves the farm until it reaches our tables.
Food is the world's biggest economic sector, involving more transactions and employing more people by far than any other. These days food is prepared and distributed using enormous amounts of processing, packaging and transportation, all of which generateGHG emissions, although data on such emissions are hard to find. Studies looking at the EU conclude that about one quarter of overall transportation involves commercial food transport[5] The scattered figures on transportation available for other countries, such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, indicate that the percentage is even higher in non-industrialised countries, where food production and delivery accounts for 60-80% of the total energy - human plus animal plus fuel – used.”[6] With transportation accounting for 25% of global GHG emissions, we can use the EU data to conservatively estimate that the transport of food accounts for at least 6% of global GHG emissions. When it comes to processing and packaging, again the available data is mainly from the EU, where studies show that the processing and packaging of food accounts for between 10-11% of GHG emissions,[7] while refrigeration of food accounts for 3-4% [8]of total emissions and food retail another 2%.[9]
Playing it conservative with the EU figures and extrapolating from the scarce figures that exist for other countries, we can estimate that at least 5-6% of emissions are due to food transport, 8-10% due to food processing and packaging, around 1-2% due to refrigeration, and 1-2% due to retail. This gives us a total contribution of 15-20% of global emissions from these activities.
Not all of what the food system produces gets consumed. The industrial food system discards up to half of all the food that it produces, in its journey from farms to traders, to food processors, to stores and supermarkets. This is enough to feed the world’s hungry six times over.[10] A lot of this waste rots away on garbage heaps and landfills, producing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Different studies indicate that somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5 of global GHG emissions come from waste, and that over 90% of them come from materials originating in agriculture and their processing.[11] This means that the decomposition of organic waste originating in food and agriculture is responsible for 3-4% of global GHG emissions.
Add the above figures together, factor up the evidence, and there is a compelling case that the current global food system, propelled by an increasingly powerful transnational food industry, is responsible for around half of all human produced greenhouse gas emissions: anywhere between a low of 44% to a high of 57%. The graph below illustrates the conclusion:
Turning the food system upside down
Clearly, we will not get out of the climate crisis if the global food system is not urgently and dramatically transformed. The place to start is with the soil.
Food begins and ends with soil. It grows out of the soil and eventually goes back in it to enable more food to be produced. This is the very cycle of life. But in recent years humans have ignored this vital cycle. We have been taking from the soil without giving back.The industrialisation of agriculture, starting in Europe and North America, replicating later through the Green Revolution in other parts of the world, was based on the assumption that soil fertility could be maintained and increased through the use of chemical fertilisers. Little attention was paid to the importance of organic matter in the soil.
A wide range of scientific reports indicate that cultivated soils have lost from 30 to 75% of their organic matter during the 20th century, while soils under pastures and prairies have typically lost up to 50%. There is no doubt that these losses have provoked a serious deterioration of soil fertility and productivity, as well as contributing to worsening droughts and floods.
Taking as a basis some of the most conservative figures provided by scientific literature, the global accumulated loss of soil organic matter over the last century may be estimated to be between 150 to 200 billion tonnes.[12] Not all this organic matter ended up in the air as CO2, as significant amounts have been washed away by erosion and have been deposited in the bottom of rivers and oceans. However, it can be estimated that at least 200 to 300 billion tonnes of CO2 have been released to the atmosphere due to the global destruction of soil organic matter. In other words, 25 to 40% of the current excess of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the destruction of soils and its organic matter.
There is some good news hidden in these devastating figures. The CO2 that we have sent into the atmosphere by depleting the world's soils can be put back into the soil. All that is required is a change of agricultural practices. We have to move away from practices that destroy organic matter to practices that build-up the organic matter in the soil.
We know this can be done. Farmers around the world have been engaging in these very practices for generations. GRAIN research has shown that, if the right policies and incentives were in place worldwide, soil organic matter contents could be restored to pre-industrial agriculture levels within a period of 50 years – which is roughly the same time frame that industrial agriculture took to reduce it.[13] The continuing use of these practices would allow the offset of between 24-30% of current global annual GHG emissions[14].
The new scenario would require a radical change in approach from the current industrial agriculture model. It would focus on the use of techniques such as diversified cropping systems, better integration between crop and animal production, increased incorporation of trees and wild vegetation, and so on. Such an increase in diversity would, in turn, increase the production potential, and the incorporation of organic matter would progressively improve soil fertility, creating virtuous cycles of higher productivity and higher availability of organic matter. The capacity of soil to hold water would increase, which would mean that excessive rainfall would lead to fewer, less intense floods and droughts. Soil erosion would become less of a problem. Soil acidity and alkalinity would fall progressively, reducing or eliminating the toxicity that has become a major problem in tropical and arid soils. Additionally, increased soil biological activity would protect plants against pests and diseases. Each one of these effects implies higher productivity and hence more organic matter available to soils, thus making possible, as the years go by, higher targets for soil organic matter incorporation. More food would be produced in the process.
To be able to do it, we would need to build on the skills and experience of the world's small farmers, rather than undermining them and forcing them off their lands, as is now the case.
A global shift towards an agriculture that builds up organic matter in the soil would also put us on a path to removing some of the other major sources of GHGs from the food system. There are three other mutually reinforcing shifts that need to take place in the food system to address its overall contribution to climate change: The first is a shift to local markets and shorter circuits of food distribution, which will cut back on transportation and the need for packaging, processing and refrigeration. The second is a reintegration of crop and animal production, to cut back on transportation, the use of chemical fertilisers and the production of methane and nitrous oxide emissions generated by intensive meat and dairy operations. And the third is the stopping of land clearing and deforestation, which will require genuine agrarian reform and a reversal of the expansion of monoculture plantations for the production of agrofuels and animal feed.
If the world gets serious about putting these four shifts into action, it is quite possible that we can cut global GHG emissions in half within a few decades and, in the process, go a long way towards resolving the other crises affecting the planet, such as poverty and hunger. There are no technical hurdles standing in the way-- the knowledge and skills are in the hands of the world's farmers and we can build on that. The only hurdles are political, and this is where we need to focus our efforts.
Notes
[1] The IPCC says 10-12%, the OECD says 14% and the WRI says 14.9%. See:
- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Chapter 8: Agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/ms4mzb
- Wilfrid Legg and Hsin Huang. OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Climate change and agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/5u2hf8k
- WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe
[2] See: WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe And: IPCC. 2004. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: 3.4.2 Consequences of Land-use Change. http://tinyurl.com/6lduxqy
[3] See FAO Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products – Forty ninth Session – Bakubung, South Africa, 10 June 2008; and M. Kanninen et al., "Do trees grow on Money? Forest Perspective 4, CIFOR, Jakarta, 2007.
[4] See: GRAIN, 'Global Agribusiness: two decades of plunder', in: Seedling, July 2010.
[5] see: Eurostat. From farm to fork - a statistical journey along the EU's food chain - Issue number 27/2011 http://tinyurl.com/656tchm and http://tinyurl.com/6k9jsc3
[6] FAO. Stephen Karekezi and Michael Lazarus, Future energy requirements for Africa’s agriculture. Chapters 2, 3, and 4. http://www.fao.org/docrep/V9766E/v9766e00.htm#Contents
[7] For EU, see: Viktoria BOLLA, Velina PENDOLOVSKA, Driving forces behind EU-27 greenhouse gas emissions over the decade 1999-2008. Statistics in focus 10/2011. http://tinyurl.com/6bhesog
[8] Tara Garnett and Tim Jackson, Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of SurreyFrost Bitten: an exploration of refrigeration dependence in the UK food chain and its implications for climate policywww.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/Frostbitten%20paper.pdf
[9] S.A. Tassou, Y. Ge, A. Hadawey, D. Marriott. Energy consumption and conservation in food retailing. Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 147-156 AND Kumar Venkat. CleanMetrics Corp. The Climate Change Impact of US Food Waste
CleanMetrics Technical Brief. www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/ClimateChangeImpactofUSFoodWaste.pdf and Ioannis Bakas, Copenhagen Resource Institute (CRI). Food and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/KU_Food_GHG_emissions.pdf
[10] Tristram Stuart, “Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal”, Penguin, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/m3dxc9
[11] Jean Bogner, et. al. Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: conclusions and strategies from the IPCC. Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation) http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/26/1/11.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc
[12] Figures used for calculations were:
a) an average loss of 4,5- 6 kg of SOM/m2 of arable land and 2-3 kg of SOM/m2 of agricultural land under prairies and not cultivated
b) an average soil depth of 30 cm, with an average soil density of 1 gr/cm3
c) 5000 million ha of agricultural land worldwide; 1800 million ha of arable land, as stated by FAO
d) a ratio of 1,46 kg of CO2 for each kg of destroyed SOM
[13] See: 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009. http://www.grain.org/e/735
[14] The conclusion is based on the assumption that organic matter incorporation would reach an annual global average rate of 3.5 to 5 tonnes per hectare of agricultural land. For more detailed calculations, see: GRAIN, 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009, table 2.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Politics and Climate Change
I wrote a while back in a post titled, It's Time To Shut Up And Do Something, that I believe climate change is the biggest issue we may ever face as a species.
I didn't stop with my blog post. I appealed to my own representatives on the matter. Here is what Senator Maria Cantwell had to say.
The language illustrates that, while we all agree climate change is a problem, we're not willing to make many concessions.
As always, we are continuing to live off the backs of future generations because we are not willing to sacrifice.
We suck.
[From Maria Cantwell : ]
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about climate change. I appreciate hearing from you on what I believe is the preeminent environmental challenge facing our generation and sincerely regret the delayed response.
As you know, scientists have determined that the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, will cause the Earth's climate to warm, potentially leading to greater occurrences of droughts, floods, and other catastrophic natural disasters. In Washington, climate change is expected to alter the region's historic water cycle, threatening drinking water supplies, wildlife and salmon habitat, and the availability of emissions free hydropower. In fact, researchers project that the annual average temperature in the Pacific Northwest will rise about 2 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2020s and April 1 snowpack could decrease as much as 40% in Washington State by the 2040s. Considering these potentially serious environmental and economic consequences, I believe that the United States must urgently address this matter, in partnership with the rest of the world.
One of my top priorities as a U.S. Senator has been to fight for legislation to promote the production of renewable energy, incentivize energy efficiency, develop clean technology industries, and protect our environment. While these energy measures provide critical tools necessary to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we also need federal legislation that establishes scientifically based emissions caps. Unfortunately, I have concerns about the cap-and-trade climate measures that have dominated Congressional debate to date because they unfairly penalize the Pacific Northwest's decades-old reliance on emissions free hydropower. In addition, they do not recognize that our state's hydropower system is mature and won't be able to add much more capacity in coming years, thus any future electricity generation will likely be relatively more polluting. Some legislative proposals would also effectively penalize Washington State for its years of aggressive energy efficiency measures, making any additional savings more costly for Washington State relative to other parts of the country. Finally, I have strong concerns that some cap-and-trade proposals could provide windfalls to historic polluters, or allow excessive speculation and manipulation of emission allocation trading markets. For decades, Washingtonians have been on the cutting edge of clean energy solutions and energy efficiency, setting an example for the rest of the nation. I have been committed to working with my colleagues to craft legislation that will cut our greenhouse gas emissions without punishing low carbon intensity states.
With that in mind, on December 11, 2009, I authored and introduced bipartisan legislation with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine that will put a predictable price on carbon, reduce our nation's dangerous over-dependence on fossil fuels, and mitigate the threat of global warming. This bill will accelerate our nation's urgently needed transition to a clean energy economy, helping ensure America's leadership in the largest market opportunity of the 21st century while protecting the vast majority of Americans from higher energy prices.
The Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act (S. 2877) gradually limits the amount of fossil fuels entering the U.S. economy by requiring fossil fuel producers and importers to bid at an auction for permits to place their product into commerce. Out of the money raised at the auction, three-fourths goes directly back to every American, and one-fourth goes toward clean energy investment. Eventually, as the amount of carbon allowed into the market declines over time and spending increases in other greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts, the CLEAR Act will reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, and by over 80 percent before 2050.
Many Americans are rightfully concerned about rising energy bills during America's transition to a clean energy economy. That's why the CLEAR Act is rooted in protecting consumers, with most of the monthly carbon auctions going straight to your pockets. This monthly dividend, made out to each American on an equal per capita basis, ensures all but the wealthiest ten percent of Washingtonians (who use the most energy) do not lose money but instead come out ahead. A typical family of four would receive tax-free monthly checks averaging $1,100 per year, or up to $21,000 between 2012 and 2030.
The remaining quarter of auction revenues are directed to a dedicated trust, the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust (CERT) Fund, to accelerate the nation's urgently needed transition to a cleaner 21st century energy system and meet other climate change-related priorities. These priorities include clean energy R&D, low income weatherization assistance, reductions of greenhouse gases in the forestry and agricultural sectors, and needs-based, regionally-targeted assistance for communities and workers transitioning to a clean energy economy.
The CLEAR Act invests in America's future by positioning the United States as a global leader in clean energy expansion, creating jobs and recharging our economy at home. With the right policies, millions of green jobs will be created, strengthening our economy, international competitiveness and nation's infrastructure. The longer we wait to tackle energy independence and carbon pollution, the larger the economic and social costs of adapting to climate change will grow. Our time of renewal is now, and I plan to continue pushing the most effective policies to create a cleaner, more diverse and secure 21st century energy system.
I didn't stop with my blog post. I appealed to my own representatives on the matter. Here is what Senator Maria Cantwell had to say.
The language illustrates that, while we all agree climate change is a problem, we're not willing to make many concessions.
As always, we are continuing to live off the backs of future generations because we are not willing to sacrifice.
We suck.
[From Maria Cantwell : ]
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about climate change. I appreciate hearing from you on what I believe is the preeminent environmental challenge facing our generation and sincerely regret the delayed response.
As you know, scientists have determined that the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, will cause the Earth's climate to warm, potentially leading to greater occurrences of droughts, floods, and other catastrophic natural disasters. In Washington, climate change is expected to alter the region's historic water cycle, threatening drinking water supplies, wildlife and salmon habitat, and the availability of emissions free hydropower. In fact, researchers project that the annual average temperature in the Pacific Northwest will rise about 2 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2020s and April 1 snowpack could decrease as much as 40% in Washington State by the 2040s. Considering these potentially serious environmental and economic consequences, I believe that the United States must urgently address this matter, in partnership with the rest of the world.
One of my top priorities as a U.S. Senator has been to fight for legislation to promote the production of renewable energy, incentivize energy efficiency, develop clean technology industries, and protect our environment. While these energy measures provide critical tools necessary to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we also need federal legislation that establishes scientifically based emissions caps. Unfortunately, I have concerns about the cap-and-trade climate measures that have dominated Congressional debate to date because they unfairly penalize the Pacific Northwest's decades-old reliance on emissions free hydropower. In addition, they do not recognize that our state's hydropower system is mature and won't be able to add much more capacity in coming years, thus any future electricity generation will likely be relatively more polluting. Some legislative proposals would also effectively penalize Washington State for its years of aggressive energy efficiency measures, making any additional savings more costly for Washington State relative to other parts of the country. Finally, I have strong concerns that some cap-and-trade proposals could provide windfalls to historic polluters, or allow excessive speculation and manipulation of emission allocation trading markets. For decades, Washingtonians have been on the cutting edge of clean energy solutions and energy efficiency, setting an example for the rest of the nation. I have been committed to working with my colleagues to craft legislation that will cut our greenhouse gas emissions without punishing low carbon intensity states.
With that in mind, on December 11, 2009, I authored and introduced bipartisan legislation with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine that will put a predictable price on carbon, reduce our nation's dangerous over-dependence on fossil fuels, and mitigate the threat of global warming. This bill will accelerate our nation's urgently needed transition to a clean energy economy, helping ensure America's leadership in the largest market opportunity of the 21st century while protecting the vast majority of Americans from higher energy prices.
The Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act (S. 2877) gradually limits the amount of fossil fuels entering the U.S. economy by requiring fossil fuel producers and importers to bid at an auction for permits to place their product into commerce. Out of the money raised at the auction, three-fourths goes directly back to every American, and one-fourth goes toward clean energy investment. Eventually, as the amount of carbon allowed into the market declines over time and spending increases in other greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts, the CLEAR Act will reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, and by over 80 percent before 2050.
Many Americans are rightfully concerned about rising energy bills during America's transition to a clean energy economy. That's why the CLEAR Act is rooted in protecting consumers, with most of the monthly carbon auctions going straight to your pockets. This monthly dividend, made out to each American on an equal per capita basis, ensures all but the wealthiest ten percent of Washingtonians (who use the most energy) do not lose money but instead come out ahead. A typical family of four would receive tax-free monthly checks averaging $1,100 per year, or up to $21,000 between 2012 and 2030.
The remaining quarter of auction revenues are directed to a dedicated trust, the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust (CERT) Fund, to accelerate the nation's urgently needed transition to a cleaner 21st century energy system and meet other climate change-related priorities. These priorities include clean energy R&D, low income weatherization assistance, reductions of greenhouse gases in the forestry and agricultural sectors, and needs-based, regionally-targeted assistance for communities and workers transitioning to a clean energy economy.
The CLEAR Act invests in America's future by positioning the United States as a global leader in clean energy expansion, creating jobs and recharging our economy at home. With the right policies, millions of green jobs will be created, strengthening our economy, international competitiveness and nation's infrastructure. The longer we wait to tackle energy independence and carbon pollution, the larger the economic and social costs of adapting to climate change will grow. Our time of renewal is now, and I plan to continue pushing the most effective policies to create a cleaner, more diverse and secure 21st century energy system.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The Climate Change "Hoax"
A couple things for the climate change disbelievers...
Climate Highlights
(from FarmProgress.com)
Several locations broke all-time high temperature records. On June 26, Amarillo, Texas, set an all-time high temperature record of 111 degrees F, breaking the record of 109 degrees F set just two days prior. On June 15, Tallahassee, Fla., also recorded an all-time high, 105 degrees F. For the month, 42 U.S. locations tied or broke all-time maximum high temperatures.
The expansive heat across Texas resulted in an average temperature of 85.2 degrees F, which was 5.6 degrees F above normal, surpassing 1953 as the warmest June in 117 years of records. This was the fourth consecutive June in Texas with temperatures at least 2 degrees F above the long-term average.
Both Louisiana and Oklahoma (tied) had their second warmest June. Georgia tied for it's third warmest. It was the sixth warmest for Arkansas, Delaware (tied), Florida, Mississippi, and New Mexico.
Along with the heat, parts of the Southwest through much of the Southern Plains and Gulf Coast experienced a continuation of intense drought. New Mexico had its driest June on record while Arizona and Oklahoma had their fourth driest. June was the fifth driest in Texas and the ninth driest in Florida.
According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, 63% of the Southeast was in moderate-to-exceptional drought at the end of June, compared to 51% at the end of May. In the South, the percent area in the worst category of drought, called exceptional drought, rose from 28% to 47%.
Above average wildfire activity continued across the Southern tier of the U.S. Nationwide, 1.35 million acres burned during the month, bringing the year-to-date acreage burned to approximately 4.8 million acres -- the most on record for the period -- and more than twice the decadal average.
Precipitation was much above normal in most of California, resulting in the state's wettest June on record. Heavier-than-normal precipitation and prolonged snowmelt during the spring caused June flooding in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Washington. The greatest flows on the Missouri River forced record amounts of water to be released from Fort Peck Reservoir in Montana.
Cooler-than-normal temperatures prevailed in the West, Northwest and the western High Plains. It was the 12th coolest June for the Northwest.
Other highlights
Both Oregon and Washington (tied) - and the Northwest Region - had their coolest April-June period on record. Meanwhile, the South had its second warmest and the Southeast its third warmest such period.
Record warmth dominated Texas during the past three months. A total of 14 states, mostly in the South and Southeast United States experienced an average April-June temperature among their 10 warmest.
Record precipitation caused by a persistent storm track across the northern U.S. drove the wettest April-June period in the High Plains and the Ohio Valley area. Within the Ohio Valley area, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan had their wettest April-June on record.
For the year-to-date period, three drought-stricken states - Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas - had their driest January-June on record. In that time, Louisiana was 11.72 inches below its 20th century year-to-date average 29.16 inches. Texas was more than eight inches below its average of 13.83 inches and New Mexico was nearly 3.5 inches below its average of 4.68 inches at this point in the calendar year.
[READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE]
...and if that isn't enough for you, add this to the equation:
I sure am glad we're all focusing on the Federal budget and the economy!
Climate Highlights
(from FarmProgress.com)
Several locations broke all-time high temperature records. On June 26, Amarillo, Texas, set an all-time high temperature record of 111 degrees F, breaking the record of 109 degrees F set just two days prior. On June 15, Tallahassee, Fla., also recorded an all-time high, 105 degrees F. For the month, 42 U.S. locations tied or broke all-time maximum high temperatures.
The expansive heat across Texas resulted in an average temperature of 85.2 degrees F, which was 5.6 degrees F above normal, surpassing 1953 as the warmest June in 117 years of records. This was the fourth consecutive June in Texas with temperatures at least 2 degrees F above the long-term average.
Both Louisiana and Oklahoma (tied) had their second warmest June. Georgia tied for it's third warmest. It was the sixth warmest for Arkansas, Delaware (tied), Florida, Mississippi, and New Mexico.
Along with the heat, parts of the Southwest through much of the Southern Plains and Gulf Coast experienced a continuation of intense drought. New Mexico had its driest June on record while Arizona and Oklahoma had their fourth driest. June was the fifth driest in Texas and the ninth driest in Florida.
According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, 63% of the Southeast was in moderate-to-exceptional drought at the end of June, compared to 51% at the end of May. In the South, the percent area in the worst category of drought, called exceptional drought, rose from 28% to 47%.
Above average wildfire activity continued across the Southern tier of the U.S. Nationwide, 1.35 million acres burned during the month, bringing the year-to-date acreage burned to approximately 4.8 million acres -- the most on record for the period -- and more than twice the decadal average.
Precipitation was much above normal in most of California, resulting in the state's wettest June on record. Heavier-than-normal precipitation and prolonged snowmelt during the spring caused June flooding in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Washington. The greatest flows on the Missouri River forced record amounts of water to be released from Fort Peck Reservoir in Montana.
Cooler-than-normal temperatures prevailed in the West, Northwest and the western High Plains. It was the 12th coolest June for the Northwest.
Other highlights
Both Oregon and Washington (tied) - and the Northwest Region - had their coolest April-June period on record. Meanwhile, the South had its second warmest and the Southeast its third warmest such period.
Record warmth dominated Texas during the past three months. A total of 14 states, mostly in the South and Southeast United States experienced an average April-June temperature among their 10 warmest.
Record precipitation caused by a persistent storm track across the northern U.S. drove the wettest April-June period in the High Plains and the Ohio Valley area. Within the Ohio Valley area, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan had their wettest April-June on record.
For the year-to-date period, three drought-stricken states - Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas - had their driest January-June on record. In that time, Louisiana was 11.72 inches below its 20th century year-to-date average 29.16 inches. Texas was more than eight inches below its average of 13.83 inches and New Mexico was nearly 3.5 inches below its average of 4.68 inches at this point in the calendar year.
[READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE]
...and if that isn't enough for you, add this to the equation:
By Matt Andrejczak
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Don’t expect price relief at the grocery store anytime soon. Food inflation will persist in 2012, the U.S. Agriculture Department indicated in an updated forecast released Monday.
Food prices next year are expected to increase 2.5% to 3.5%, compared with 2011’s projected 3%-to-4% gain. Still, the cost of food at supermarkets and restaurants will remain “slightly” above the long-term historical average of the past two decades, the USDA food-price forecasters said.
“Price levels in 2012 will hinge significantly on weather conditions in the American Midwest during the remainder of July and into August and September 2011,” USDA food economist Ephraim Leibtag said in the report.
“Because current USDA forecasts are based on a normal weather scenario, sustained heat or drought conditions resulting in reduced supplies and intensified inflationary pressure would result in revised USDA forecasts,” Leibtag added.
I sure am glad we're all focusing on the Federal budget and the economy!
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Economists find flaws in federal estimate of climate damage
Economists find flaws in federal estimate of climate damage
July 13, 2011
A new report concludes that each ton of carbon dioxide emitted in the atmosphere inflicts as much as $900 in environmental harm - almost 45 times the amount the federal government uses when setting regulations. The gap, advocates say, disguises the true value of emissions reductions.
By Douglas Fischer
Uncle Sam's estimate of the damage caused by each ton of carbon dioxide is fundamentally flawed and "grossly understates" the potential impacts of climate change, according to an analysis released Tuesday by a group of economists.
The study found the true cost of those emissions to be far beyond the $21 per ton derived by the federal government.
The figure, commonly known as the "social cost of carbon," is used by federal agencies when weighing the costs and benefits of emissions-cutting regulations, such as air conditioner efficiency standards and greenhouse gas emissions limits for light trucks.
A truer value, according to the Economics for Equity and the Environment Network, an organization of economists who advocate for environmental protection, could be as high as $900 per ton - equivalent to adding $9 to each gallon of gas. Viewed another way, with the United States emitting the equivalent of close to 6 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, the higher figure suggests that avoiding those emissions could save the nation $5.3 trillion annually, one-third of the nation's economic output.
'Dramatic simplifications'
A second, separate report released Tuesday buttressed the argument, finding that the government routinely underestimates the benefits of avoiding climate change when conducting cost-benefit analysis on regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This second report, published jointly by the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank, and the Environmental Law Institute, found that government models on climate impacts often contain "dramatic simplifications and assumptions" - such as when calculating the social cost of carbon - that underplay the benefits society gains by curbing emissions.
Together, the two reports suggest policy makers are looking at a distorted picture as they assess the economic impacts of climate regulations.
The issue has gained urgency as efforts to create a cap-and-trade system or impose a carbon tax have stalled in Congress and federal rules - via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - become the primary vehicle for reducing emissions.
"Based on what we know today, the government's current range of social costs is very likely a serious underestimation of what we think those costs will be," said Kristen Sheeran, executive director of the E3 Network.
"It does not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis," she added. "It could lead to a degree of inaction on climate change that frankly is not supported by either the economics or the science at this point."
Costly impacts missed
A lower social cost of carbon - particularly when combined with an underestimate of the benefits of reducing emissions - makes justifying expensive emissions-cutting regulations much harder, advocates say.
But how to value the cost of climate change has proven to be a contentious issue.
Computer models attempting to assess the economic impacts of climate change are, in many cases, streamlined affairs that can only look at impacts broadly - at a scale of hundreds of miles, instead of, say, at a particular watershed, township, or even state.
Economists at the E3 Network, an umbrella group of about 200 economists, contend many potentially costly impacts are missed: Sweltering inland temperatures are averaged with cooler coastal weather. Or an intense, deadly rainstorm never shows up in a monthly average rainfall tally.
That leads to considerable uncertainty about the severity of the damages. For example, a global model used in part by the federal government to derive the $21-per-ton price finds that a 4.5ºF (2.5ºC) temperature rise will cost 1.8 percent of the world GDP. But University of California, Berkeley, economist Michael Hanemann, conducting a detailed review of that estimate as it applies just to the United States, found it should be four times as large.
Inflated assumptions
The point, say E3 economists, is that when the latest science on cost of climate extremes, the pace of global change, and how to account for those damages in the future are incorporated into the federal government's mathematics, the picture changes dramatically.
"Now that we know how much we could end up paying to endure the impacts of climate change, investing in reducing our emissions is clearly the prudent option," Frank Ackerman, an economist with the Stockholm Environment Institute and one of the report's two authors, said in a statement. "It's the difference between servicing your car, or waiting for it to break down on the highway."
Officials at the EPA were unavailable for comment Tuesday evening. Michael Greenstone, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor who led the federal effort to price the cost of climate impacts (pdf), was similarly unavailable.
In an interview earlier this year, however, Greenstone said the federal panel charged with pricing impacts did consider several studies that pegged the social cost of carbon closer to $3,000 per ton of carbon dioxide. But those higher values were based on unlikely assumptions, Greenstone said. When the panel held those assumptions and variables constant, the picture changed dramatically, and the federal estimate fell within the mid-range of the published literature, he said.
The federal panel published its $21-per-ton figure in February 2010 with a promise to reassess its work within two years. Sheeran noted 18 months have passed, with no evidence the estimate is being revised.
"It does not appear to be a priority within the administration," she said.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
July 13, 2011
A new report concludes that each ton of carbon dioxide emitted in the atmosphere inflicts as much as $900 in environmental harm - almost 45 times the amount the federal government uses when setting regulations. The gap, advocates say, disguises the true value of emissions reductions.
By Douglas Fischer
Uncle Sam's estimate of the damage caused by each ton of carbon dioxide is fundamentally flawed and "grossly understates" the potential impacts of climate change, according to an analysis released Tuesday by a group of economists.
The study found the true cost of those emissions to be far beyond the $21 per ton derived by the federal government.
The figure, commonly known as the "social cost of carbon," is used by federal agencies when weighing the costs and benefits of emissions-cutting regulations, such as air conditioner efficiency standards and greenhouse gas emissions limits for light trucks.
A truer value, according to the Economics for Equity and the Environment Network, an organization of economists who advocate for environmental protection, could be as high as $900 per ton - equivalent to adding $9 to each gallon of gas. Viewed another way, with the United States emitting the equivalent of close to 6 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, the higher figure suggests that avoiding those emissions could save the nation $5.3 trillion annually, one-third of the nation's economic output.
'Dramatic simplifications'
A second, separate report released Tuesday buttressed the argument, finding that the government routinely underestimates the benefits of avoiding climate change when conducting cost-benefit analysis on regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This second report, published jointly by the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank, and the Environmental Law Institute, found that government models on climate impacts often contain "dramatic simplifications and assumptions" - such as when calculating the social cost of carbon - that underplay the benefits society gains by curbing emissions.
Together, the two reports suggest policy makers are looking at a distorted picture as they assess the economic impacts of climate regulations.
The issue has gained urgency as efforts to create a cap-and-trade system or impose a carbon tax have stalled in Congress and federal rules - via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - become the primary vehicle for reducing emissions.
"Based on what we know today, the government's current range of social costs is very likely a serious underestimation of what we think those costs will be," said Kristen Sheeran, executive director of the E3 Network.
"It does not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis," she added. "It could lead to a degree of inaction on climate change that frankly is not supported by either the economics or the science at this point."
Costly impacts missed
A lower social cost of carbon - particularly when combined with an underestimate of the benefits of reducing emissions - makes justifying expensive emissions-cutting regulations much harder, advocates say.
But how to value the cost of climate change has proven to be a contentious issue.
Computer models attempting to assess the economic impacts of climate change are, in many cases, streamlined affairs that can only look at impacts broadly - at a scale of hundreds of miles, instead of, say, at a particular watershed, township, or even state.
Economists at the E3 Network, an umbrella group of about 200 economists, contend many potentially costly impacts are missed: Sweltering inland temperatures are averaged with cooler coastal weather. Or an intense, deadly rainstorm never shows up in a monthly average rainfall tally.
That leads to considerable uncertainty about the severity of the damages. For example, a global model used in part by the federal government to derive the $21-per-ton price finds that a 4.5ºF (2.5ºC) temperature rise will cost 1.8 percent of the world GDP. But University of California, Berkeley, economist Michael Hanemann, conducting a detailed review of that estimate as it applies just to the United States, found it should be four times as large.
Inflated assumptions
The point, say E3 economists, is that when the latest science on cost of climate extremes, the pace of global change, and how to account for those damages in the future are incorporated into the federal government's mathematics, the picture changes dramatically.
"Now that we know how much we could end up paying to endure the impacts of climate change, investing in reducing our emissions is clearly the prudent option," Frank Ackerman, an economist with the Stockholm Environment Institute and one of the report's two authors, said in a statement. "It's the difference between servicing your car, or waiting for it to break down on the highway."
Officials at the EPA were unavailable for comment Tuesday evening. Michael Greenstone, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor who led the federal effort to price the cost of climate impacts (pdf), was similarly unavailable.
In an interview earlier this year, however, Greenstone said the federal panel charged with pricing impacts did consider several studies that pegged the social cost of carbon closer to $3,000 per ton of carbon dioxide. But those higher values were based on unlikely assumptions, Greenstone said. When the panel held those assumptions and variables constant, the picture changed dramatically, and the federal estimate fell within the mid-range of the published literature, he said.
The federal panel published its $21-per-ton figure in February 2010 with a promise to reassess its work within two years. Sheeran noted 18 months have passed, with no evidence the estimate is being revised.
"It does not appear to be a priority within the administration," she said.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Saturday, July 9, 2011
It's Time To Shut Up And Do Something
Our garden is about two months behind last year, which was a horrible growing season. Yesterday I was able to hang the laundry outside for the first time this year -- that's about two months behind the norm. It's not just the Puget Sound. While in Nebraska, every time I commented on how beautiful it was (it really is) I was told how wet and cold it had been and generations of folks would say, "It's never this green this time of year".
There are tornadoes in Arizona, the Missouri River is experiencing record flooding, and the entire state of Texas has been declared a disaster area due to drought and wildfires. Oceans are rising. It seems pretty obvious that Ma Nature is not cooperating with human "business as usual".
People in Canada and Australia are concerned about what we need to do about it. It was only a few years ago that the majority of Americans believed that climate change was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Then two things happened: the economy took a dive and a democrat was elected President. This is important because climatologists still insist that we need to address the causes of climate change immediately, if it's not already too late. But a handful of people have decided to use the issue to further polarize political parties and now the number of climate change deniers is going up.
This is insane and I don't understand the reasoning.
Okay, so a few strange weather occurrences does not necessarily mean anything. I get that and if that's what we were talking about, that'd be one thing. But we aren't. We're talking about a growing body of evidence and a majority of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and we are responsible.
"We can't afford to do anything about it right now". The economy is in the toilet, sure, but who is going to be glad we focused on that when millions of people start getting displaced, we can't grow food, and drinking water is scarce? It's as if people don't understand we are talking about losing our basic necessities: food and shelter. We are talking about a world that can not longer sustain not just us, but the plants and animals that we rely on. I really want my 401k to take care of me when I retire, but if it's a choice between that or food, I'll find a way to make ends meet.
I read somewhere someone called climate change a hoax and suggested that it was some kind of liberal plot to make people spend money. First of all, if you want plots, turn to the advertising companies. Marketers have gotten us all to spend so much money on crap -- much of which is bad for us -- I can't understand where anyone has the energy to spend on a conspiracy theory around climate change. Second, these are the same people bitching about the economy. Guess what? Investing in new energy sources CREATES JOBS. We should be creating new jobs in solar, wind, and hydro manufacturing and installation and putting people back to work! Why is anybody against these new jobs?
If we really buckle down and try to deal with this problem the worst case scenario is this: the economy gets a shot in the arm with new jobs, we create cleaner energy, the air and water are cleaner, we all become a little more responsible, our children have better lives, and it was all for nothing -- either it really is too late and we can't change it, or it was all just a myth.
Here's the other worst case scenario: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising sea levels displace the majority of the world's population over the next decades, our agriculture and natural resources are wiped out, and you, me, and our children become part of the sharpest population decline in human history.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Further reading:
http://www.thesomervillenews.com/archives/16495
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/08/lets-change-our-ways-before-its-too-late/
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf
There are tornadoes in Arizona, the Missouri River is experiencing record flooding, and the entire state of Texas has been declared a disaster area due to drought and wildfires. Oceans are rising. It seems pretty obvious that Ma Nature is not cooperating with human "business as usual".
People in Canada and Australia are concerned about what we need to do about it. It was only a few years ago that the majority of Americans believed that climate change was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Then two things happened: the economy took a dive and a democrat was elected President. This is important because climatologists still insist that we need to address the causes of climate change immediately, if it's not already too late. But a handful of people have decided to use the issue to further polarize political parties and now the number of climate change deniers is going up.
This is insane and I don't understand the reasoning.
Okay, so a few strange weather occurrences does not necessarily mean anything. I get that and if that's what we were talking about, that'd be one thing. But we aren't. We're talking about a growing body of evidence and a majority of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and we are responsible.
"We can't afford to do anything about it right now". The economy is in the toilet, sure, but who is going to be glad we focused on that when millions of people start getting displaced, we can't grow food, and drinking water is scarce? It's as if people don't understand we are talking about losing our basic necessities: food and shelter. We are talking about a world that can not longer sustain not just us, but the plants and animals that we rely on. I really want my 401k to take care of me when I retire, but if it's a choice between that or food, I'll find a way to make ends meet.
I read somewhere someone called climate change a hoax and suggested that it was some kind of liberal plot to make people spend money. First of all, if you want plots, turn to the advertising companies. Marketers have gotten us all to spend so much money on crap -- much of which is bad for us -- I can't understand where anyone has the energy to spend on a conspiracy theory around climate change. Second, these are the same people bitching about the economy. Guess what? Investing in new energy sources CREATES JOBS. We should be creating new jobs in solar, wind, and hydro manufacturing and installation and putting people back to work! Why is anybody against these new jobs?
If we really buckle down and try to deal with this problem the worst case scenario is this: the economy gets a shot in the arm with new jobs, we create cleaner energy, the air and water are cleaner, we all become a little more responsible, our children have better lives, and it was all for nothing -- either it really is too late and we can't change it, or it was all just a myth.
Here's the other worst case scenario: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising sea levels displace the majority of the world's population over the next decades, our agriculture and natural resources are wiped out, and you, me, and our children become part of the sharpest population decline in human history.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Further reading:
http://www.thesomervillenews.com/archives/16495
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/08/lets-change-our-ways-before-its-too-late/
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Report Warns Of Mass Extinction From Current Rate Of Marine Distress
From HuffingtonPost.com:
Travis Donovan
First Posted: 06/20/11 05:19 PM ET Updated: 06/21/11 09:09 AM ET
If the current actions contributing to a multifaceted degradation of the world's oceans aren't curbed, a mass extinction unlike anything human history has ever seen is coming, an expert panel of scientists warns in an alarming new report.
The preliminary report from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) is the result of the first-ever interdisciplinary international workshop examining the combined impact of all of the stressors currently affecting the oceans, including pollution, warming, acidification, overfishing and hypoxia.
“The findings are shocking," Dr. Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director, said in a statement released by the group. "This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."
The scientific panel concluded that degeneration in the oceans is happening much faster than has been predicted, and that the combination of factors currently distressing the marine environment is contributing to the precise conditions that have been associated with all major extinctions in the Earth's history.
According to the report, three major factors have been present in the handful of mass extinctions that have occurred in the past: an increase of both hypoxia (low oxygen) and anoxia (lack of oxygen that creates "dead zones") in the oceans, warming and acidification. The panel warns that the combination of these factors will inevitably cause a mass marine extinction if swift action isn't taken to improve conditions.
The report is the latest of several published in recent months examining the dire conditions of the oceans. A recent World Resources Institute report suggests that all coral reefs could be gone by 2050 if no action is taken to protect them, while a study published earlier this year in BioScience declares oysters as "functionally extinct", their populations decimated by over-harvesting and disease. Just last week scientists forecasted that this year's Gulf "dead zone" will be the largest in history due to increased runoff from the Mississippi River dragging in high levels of nitrates and phosphates from fertilizers.
A recent study in the journal Nature, meanwhile, suggests that not only will the next mass extinction be man-made, but that it could already be underway. Unless humans make significant changes to their behavior, that is.
The IPSO report calls for such changes, recommending actions in key areas: immediate reduction of CO2 emissions, coordinated efforts to restore marine ecosystems, and universal implementation of the precautionary principle so "activities proceed only if they are shown not to harm the ocean singly or in combination with other activities." The panel also calls for the UN to swiftly introduce an "effective governance of the High Seas."
"The challenges for the future of the ocean are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen," Dan Laffoley of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and co-author of the report said in a press release for the new report. "The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Travis Donovan
First Posted: 06/20/11 05:19 PM ET Updated: 06/21/11 09:09 AM ET
If the current actions contributing to a multifaceted degradation of the world's oceans aren't curbed, a mass extinction unlike anything human history has ever seen is coming, an expert panel of scientists warns in an alarming new report.
The preliminary report from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) is the result of the first-ever interdisciplinary international workshop examining the combined impact of all of the stressors currently affecting the oceans, including pollution, warming, acidification, overfishing and hypoxia.
“The findings are shocking," Dr. Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director, said in a statement released by the group. "This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."
The scientific panel concluded that degeneration in the oceans is happening much faster than has been predicted, and that the combination of factors currently distressing the marine environment is contributing to the precise conditions that have been associated with all major extinctions in the Earth's history.
According to the report, three major factors have been present in the handful of mass extinctions that have occurred in the past: an increase of both hypoxia (low oxygen) and anoxia (lack of oxygen that creates "dead zones") in the oceans, warming and acidification. The panel warns that the combination of these factors will inevitably cause a mass marine extinction if swift action isn't taken to improve conditions.
The report is the latest of several published in recent months examining the dire conditions of the oceans. A recent World Resources Institute report suggests that all coral reefs could be gone by 2050 if no action is taken to protect them, while a study published earlier this year in BioScience declares oysters as "functionally extinct", their populations decimated by over-harvesting and disease. Just last week scientists forecasted that this year's Gulf "dead zone" will be the largest in history due to increased runoff from the Mississippi River dragging in high levels of nitrates and phosphates from fertilizers.
A recent study in the journal Nature, meanwhile, suggests that not only will the next mass extinction be man-made, but that it could already be underway. Unless humans make significant changes to their behavior, that is.
The IPSO report calls for such changes, recommending actions in key areas: immediate reduction of CO2 emissions, coordinated efforts to restore marine ecosystems, and universal implementation of the precautionary principle so "activities proceed only if they are shown not to harm the ocean singly or in combination with other activities." The panel also calls for the UN to swiftly introduce an "effective governance of the High Seas."
"The challenges for the future of the ocean are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen," Dan Laffoley of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and co-author of the report said in a press release for the new report. "The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Friday, June 3, 2011
Climate Change
This article appeared this morning. I'm going to tie it and article I posted a couple days ago because I think it's important to point out just how tragically our government is dropping the ball on this one.
See: Wind and Solar Opponents Use Bureaucracy To Stall Projects
Here's today's article from climate scientist Heidi Cullen:
The C-Word
Posted: 06/ 3/11 09:06 AM ET
My phone tends to ring a lot more when the weather is bad. I often get calls from reporters and producers who usually ask me the same question a bunch of different ways. "Is this global warming?" "Is climate change to blame?" "Is the weather getting worse?"
These are big -- almost existential -- questions. I suspect they are a polite way of asking, "Is this our fault?"
Climate scientists approach the question a little differently. We want to test how global warming shifts the odds of a severe weather event. Just like medical researchers do with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. In fact, this line of climate research comes straight out of epidemiology. In essence, we're doing autopsies on extreme weather events to find out what made them so bad-ass.
Depending on the type of extreme weather event, my answer can be short or long, straightforward or complicated. Keep in mind, all weather is now born into an environment that is warmer and moister because of man-made greenhouse gas pollution. But we don't always know what influences (man-made or natural) will win out on any given day.
Events like droughts, wildfires, heat waves and heavy downpours get my short answer. We know they are going to become more frequent, more intense, and last longer. In fact, we can already see this playing out in historical data. (For a complete overview, check out the "Global Climate Change Impacts in the US", as well as some newly published research summarized here.)
Tornadoes get the long answer. Will they become more frequent, more intense? Will Tornado Alley get bigger? Will the season last longer? Jeff Masters and Andrew Freedman have both done a great job laying out the state of the research.
The bottom line is that two of the key ingredients that go into making a tornado are expected to change as a result of global warming -- water vapor (moisture in the atmosphere) and wind shear (changing wind speed and direction with height). Thanks in part to warmer oceans, water vapor has already increased about 4% and it will continue to increase as the planet warms -- providing more fuel for storms. But wind shear may decrease and that could mean fewer tornadoes. So which influence wins out -- increasing water vapor or decreasing wind shear? We don't know yet.
But even though we don't have all the answers -- and maybe never will -- we do know enough to act. And that is really the bigger point, the one I try to bring home when the phone rings. The recent National Research Council's "America's Climate Choices" report advised Congress that we know enough to get started on preparing for climate change and preventing the most severe consequences, and we need to get started right away. Almost anything we do to protect ourselves in the future from this hotter world we're creating, will also protect us right now from many of the extremes Mother Nature throws at us. We can't afford to wait.
Yet, despite this recent report, and despite all we do know about climate change, the topic has become the C-word in Washington, D.C. Just as the term "global warming" fell out of favor, the term "climate change" is now one that few in our nation's capital dare bring up in conversation, much less in legislation. Budgets for climate research have been threatened and now a nominee for Commerce Secretary is garnering opposition in large part because of his stance on environmental issues, including global climate change.
As the people of Joplin, Missouri begin the slow, painful process of rebuilding their lives -- a new wave of extremes is making headlines. A state of emergency was declared in Massachusetts on Wednesday after rare and powerful tornadoes ripped through the city of Springfield and smaller towns nearby. At the same time, long-standing temperature records fell as a wall of heat blanketed the eastern half of the country -- Washington, D.C. set a new daily record high of 98°F -- busting the old record that dated back to 1895. Hurricane season also started this week and forecasters expect it to be busier than usual. And I'm here ready for the phone to ring again, so that I can tell you one more time that if we do nothing to adapt and reduce our greenhouse gas pollution, things will only get worse... and yes, it will be our fault.
Heidi Cullen is a climate scientist at Climate Central (www.climatecentral.org) -- an independent, non-profit journalism and research organization. She is also a Visiting Lecturer at Princeton University and the author of The Weather of the Future.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]
Check out the page Heidi referenced in paragraph five. It's worth a look.
Contact President Obama
Contact your representatives
Contact the senate
See: Wind and Solar Opponents Use Bureaucracy To Stall Projects
Here's today's article from climate scientist Heidi Cullen:
The C-Word
Posted: 06/ 3/11 09:06 AM ET
My phone tends to ring a lot more when the weather is bad. I often get calls from reporters and producers who usually ask me the same question a bunch of different ways. "Is this global warming?" "Is climate change to blame?" "Is the weather getting worse?"
These are big -- almost existential -- questions. I suspect they are a polite way of asking, "Is this our fault?"
Climate scientists approach the question a little differently. We want to test how global warming shifts the odds of a severe weather event. Just like medical researchers do with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. In fact, this line of climate research comes straight out of epidemiology. In essence, we're doing autopsies on extreme weather events to find out what made them so bad-ass.
Depending on the type of extreme weather event, my answer can be short or long, straightforward or complicated. Keep in mind, all weather is now born into an environment that is warmer and moister because of man-made greenhouse gas pollution. But we don't always know what influences (man-made or natural) will win out on any given day.
Events like droughts, wildfires, heat waves and heavy downpours get my short answer. We know they are going to become more frequent, more intense, and last longer. In fact, we can already see this playing out in historical data. (For a complete overview, check out the "Global Climate Change Impacts in the US", as well as some newly published research summarized here.)
Tornadoes get the long answer. Will they become more frequent, more intense? Will Tornado Alley get bigger? Will the season last longer? Jeff Masters and Andrew Freedman have both done a great job laying out the state of the research.
The bottom line is that two of the key ingredients that go into making a tornado are expected to change as a result of global warming -- water vapor (moisture in the atmosphere) and wind shear (changing wind speed and direction with height). Thanks in part to warmer oceans, water vapor has already increased about 4% and it will continue to increase as the planet warms -- providing more fuel for storms. But wind shear may decrease and that could mean fewer tornadoes. So which influence wins out -- increasing water vapor or decreasing wind shear? We don't know yet.
But even though we don't have all the answers -- and maybe never will -- we do know enough to act. And that is really the bigger point, the one I try to bring home when the phone rings. The recent National Research Council's "America's Climate Choices" report advised Congress that we know enough to get started on preparing for climate change and preventing the most severe consequences, and we need to get started right away. Almost anything we do to protect ourselves in the future from this hotter world we're creating, will also protect us right now from many of the extremes Mother Nature throws at us. We can't afford to wait.
Yet, despite this recent report, and despite all we do know about climate change, the topic has become the C-word in Washington, D.C. Just as the term "global warming" fell out of favor, the term "climate change" is now one that few in our nation's capital dare bring up in conversation, much less in legislation. Budgets for climate research have been threatened and now a nominee for Commerce Secretary is garnering opposition in large part because of his stance on environmental issues, including global climate change.
As the people of Joplin, Missouri begin the slow, painful process of rebuilding their lives -- a new wave of extremes is making headlines. A state of emergency was declared in Massachusetts on Wednesday after rare and powerful tornadoes ripped through the city of Springfield and smaller towns nearby. At the same time, long-standing temperature records fell as a wall of heat blanketed the eastern half of the country -- Washington, D.C. set a new daily record high of 98°F -- busting the old record that dated back to 1895. Hurricane season also started this week and forecasters expect it to be busier than usual. And I'm here ready for the phone to ring again, so that I can tell you one more time that if we do nothing to adapt and reduce our greenhouse gas pollution, things will only get worse... and yes, it will be our fault.
Heidi Cullen is a climate scientist at Climate Central (www.climatecentral.org) -- an independent, non-profit journalism and research organization. She is also a Visiting Lecturer at Princeton University and the author of The Weather of the Future.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]
Check out the page Heidi referenced in paragraph five. It's worth a look.
Contact President Obama
Contact your representatives
Contact the senate
Monday, May 30, 2011
New Research Shows Factory Farms are NOT the Way to Feed the World
I saw this article last week and haven't had a chance to share it until now. The article mentions the video here (which plainly says "unauthorized use or distribution prohibited", but I'm going to assume that, since it's up on You Tube, it's safe to embed alongside an article promoting it.)
Here's the article, by pollywog on My Auburn California:
Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty (Google this or go to Mercola doc com to watch the video. Just search for the title of this article)
Conventional opinion is that feeding the world by 2050 will necessitate a massive, global ramp-up of industrial-scale, corporate-led agriculture. But this is not always the opinion of scientists whose work takes them out of the laboratory and into farm fields and ecosystems, such as soil experts, ecologists, and development specialists.
One recently published scientific paper urges a fundamental rethinking of the U.S. agricultural-research system, which it calls "narrowly focused on productivity and efficiency" at the expense of public health and ecological resilience. It also calls for a revamping of the Farm Bill, which it argues uses subsidies to "mask market, social, and environmental factors associated with conventional production systems."
According to Grist:
"While conventional wisdom holds that scientists who study agriculture think only lots of GMOs and agrichemicals can feed us going forward, [this research] team has quite a different set of recommendations in mind: 'organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.' They are by no means the only high-level researchers to reach such conclusions."
Sources:
Grist May 11, 2011
Science May 6, 2011 (PDF)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
From a purely financial perspective, factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) make loads of economic sense. Large numbers of animals, typically 1,000 or more, are raised in a small area, fed cheap, typically grain-based, genetically modified food, and supplemented with hormones and antibiotics to maximize their growth potential in the shortest amount of time possible.
"Indulgences" like access to pasture or natural foods, sunlight and fresh air are not a part of the equation as they don't positively impact profits.
As it stands, Time magazine reported that 2 percent of U.S. livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals, and these CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses.
But thankfully a ray of hope has emerged.
New Policy Reform Paper Urges Transition to Sustainable Agriculture Systems
A very bright, forward-thinking paper from a group of researchers led by Washington State University soil scientist John P. Reganold, published in Science, has summed up problems with CAFOs and the need for transformative farming approaches that address long-term sustainability.
They say:
"Achieving sustainable agricultural systems will require transformative changes in markets, policy, and science."
To realize this change will involve a transition away from CAFOs and toward innovative farming practices that:
" … integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
The paper builds on a National Research Council report released last year – Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century – that reported in 2007 the largest 2 percent of U.S. farms were responsible for 59 percent of total farm sales.
What are the Consequences of Relying on CAFOs for Food?
The trend of large corporate-controlled CAFOs making up the lion's share of U.S. food production has lead to an abundance of cheap food, but not without consequence.
As the report noted:
"Many modern agricultural practices have unintended negative consequences, or externalized costs of production, that are mostly unaccounted for in agricultural productivity measurements or by farm enterprise budgets."
This includes:
Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams and ground water (which contributes to "dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones")
Agricultural pesticide contamination to streams, ground water and wells, and safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables), which suggests "possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content)
Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application and excessive fertilization
Industrial agriculture also raises concerns about the welfare of farm animals and the farmers themselves. Net farm income received by farmers has remained stagnant for the last four decades, and more than 50 percent of U.S. farmers must supplement their income with additional jobs during the off-season.
A large number of these farmers are slated to retire in the next decade, which means there may be a vast shortage of farmers in the United States, and corporate agriculture could continue to reign supreme.
This is a problem for another glaring reason as well – namely that this system directly contributes to Americans' increasing reliance on processed junk foods – the very same foods that are making us fat and riddled with chronic disease. This is in large part due to the fatally flawed Farm Bill, which is slated to be renewed in 2012.
What's the Farm Bill Got to do With It?
The Farm Bill is renewed every four years. The last version was revamped in 2008, and at that time it set aside $2.3 billion to subsidize small farmers' specialty crops, which sounds promising until you hear that $290 billion was given to big business in the form of corn, soybean and cotton subsidies.
By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the U.S. government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.
In a nutshell, the American agricultural system promotes and produces junk food, which is the precise opposite of what we all need in order to be healthy.
Take HFCS, for example. It's actually quite difficult to find a processed food product that does NOT include HFCS, and oftentimes it's one of the top three ingredients. With everything we now know about how HFCS and other sugars create obesity and chronic disease, is it any wonder we have a health care crisis on our hands?
The breakdown of government farm subsidies is really quite eye-opening and clearly correlates with which foods are heavily consumed in the United States:
Meat/Dairy -- 73.8 percent
Grains -- 13.2 percent
Sugar/Oil/Starch/Alcohol -- 10.7 percent
Nuts/Legumes -- 1.9 percent
Vegetables/Fruits -- 0.4 percent
Notice that less than half a percent of food subsidies is for fruits and vegetables! This is precisely why families have trouble affording green peppers, leafy greens and tomatoes, but can get a fast-food cheeseburger for a buck.
The bad news is that the foods receiving the greatest subsidies are the very foods you should avoid or limit, according to federal nutrition guidelines. It's a perfect example of saying one thing but doing another, and then blaming the ill effects on human nature.
The Science report, which is calling for a reform of the Farm Bill, further notes:
"Most elements of the Farm Bill were not designed to promote sustainability. Subsidies are commonly criticized for distorting market incentives and making our food system overly dependent on a few grain crops mainly used for animal feed and highly processed food, with deleterious effects on the environment and human health."
A Better Way to Raise Our Food
The video above is the trailer from a full-length documentary called Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty. It offers an in-depth look into the escalating fight for food rights in the United States, including the right to purchase raw milk from small family farms.
The growing demand for raw milk is one sign that people are increasingly looking for fresh, whole foods that come from sustainable sources.
Partly in response to this consumer demand, researchers are now calling for both incremental and transformative approaches to make U.S. agriculture sustainable. This includes not only short-term goals like two-year crop rotations and reduced (or no) tillage but also a long-term transformative approach that:
" … builds on an understanding of agriculture as a complex socioecological system. Transformative change looks to whole-system redesign rather than single technological improvements. Examples of such innovative systems make up a modest, but growing, component of U.S. agriculture and include organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.
Such systems integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
This sounds very much like one emerging type of farming known as permaculture. The Permaculture Institute defines permaculture as an "ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor."
The word itself comes from "permanent agriculture" and "permanent culture," and at its foundation is developing agricultural and other systems that are interconnected and dependent on one another. In other words, they mimic the natural ecologies found in nature. The focus is not on any one element of the system, rather the focus is on the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat -- and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems.
How to Help Support Sustainable Agriculture
If you want to optimize your health, you simply must return to the basics of healthy food choices and typically this includes buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.
This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs.
Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.
If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Here's the article, by pollywog on My Auburn California:
Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty (Google this or go to Mercola doc com to watch the video. Just search for the title of this article)
Conventional opinion is that feeding the world by 2050 will necessitate a massive, global ramp-up of industrial-scale, corporate-led agriculture. But this is not always the opinion of scientists whose work takes them out of the laboratory and into farm fields and ecosystems, such as soil experts, ecologists, and development specialists.
One recently published scientific paper urges a fundamental rethinking of the U.S. agricultural-research system, which it calls "narrowly focused on productivity and efficiency" at the expense of public health and ecological resilience. It also calls for a revamping of the Farm Bill, which it argues uses subsidies to "mask market, social, and environmental factors associated with conventional production systems."
According to Grist:
"While conventional wisdom holds that scientists who study agriculture think only lots of GMOs and agrichemicals can feed us going forward, [this research] team has quite a different set of recommendations in mind: 'organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.' They are by no means the only high-level researchers to reach such conclusions."
Sources:
Grist May 11, 2011
Science May 6, 2011 (PDF)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
From a purely financial perspective, factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) make loads of economic sense. Large numbers of animals, typically 1,000 or more, are raised in a small area, fed cheap, typically grain-based, genetically modified food, and supplemented with hormones and antibiotics to maximize their growth potential in the shortest amount of time possible.
"Indulgences" like access to pasture or natural foods, sunlight and fresh air are not a part of the equation as they don't positively impact profits.
As it stands, Time magazine reported that 2 percent of U.S. livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals, and these CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses.
But thankfully a ray of hope has emerged.
New Policy Reform Paper Urges Transition to Sustainable Agriculture Systems
A very bright, forward-thinking paper from a group of researchers led by Washington State University soil scientist John P. Reganold, published in Science, has summed up problems with CAFOs and the need for transformative farming approaches that address long-term sustainability.
They say:
"Achieving sustainable agricultural systems will require transformative changes in markets, policy, and science."
To realize this change will involve a transition away from CAFOs and toward innovative farming practices that:
" … integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
The paper builds on a National Research Council report released last year – Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century – that reported in 2007 the largest 2 percent of U.S. farms were responsible for 59 percent of total farm sales.
What are the Consequences of Relying on CAFOs for Food?
The trend of large corporate-controlled CAFOs making up the lion's share of U.S. food production has lead to an abundance of cheap food, but not without consequence.
As the report noted:
"Many modern agricultural practices have unintended negative consequences, or externalized costs of production, that are mostly unaccounted for in agricultural productivity measurements or by farm enterprise budgets."
This includes:
Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams and ground water (which contributes to "dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones")
Agricultural pesticide contamination to streams, ground water and wells, and safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables), which suggests "possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content)
Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application and excessive fertilization
Industrial agriculture also raises concerns about the welfare of farm animals and the farmers themselves. Net farm income received by farmers has remained stagnant for the last four decades, and more than 50 percent of U.S. farmers must supplement their income with additional jobs during the off-season.
A large number of these farmers are slated to retire in the next decade, which means there may be a vast shortage of farmers in the United States, and corporate agriculture could continue to reign supreme.
This is a problem for another glaring reason as well – namely that this system directly contributes to Americans' increasing reliance on processed junk foods – the very same foods that are making us fat and riddled with chronic disease. This is in large part due to the fatally flawed Farm Bill, which is slated to be renewed in 2012.
What's the Farm Bill Got to do With It?
The Farm Bill is renewed every four years. The last version was revamped in 2008, and at that time it set aside $2.3 billion to subsidize small farmers' specialty crops, which sounds promising until you hear that $290 billion was given to big business in the form of corn, soybean and cotton subsidies.
By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the U.S. government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.
In a nutshell, the American agricultural system promotes and produces junk food, which is the precise opposite of what we all need in order to be healthy.
Take HFCS, for example. It's actually quite difficult to find a processed food product that does NOT include HFCS, and oftentimes it's one of the top three ingredients. With everything we now know about how HFCS and other sugars create obesity and chronic disease, is it any wonder we have a health care crisis on our hands?
The breakdown of government farm subsidies is really quite eye-opening and clearly correlates with which foods are heavily consumed in the United States:
Meat/Dairy -- 73.8 percent
Grains -- 13.2 percent
Sugar/Oil/Starch/Alcohol -- 10.7 percent
Nuts/Legumes -- 1.9 percent
Vegetables/Fruits -- 0.4 percent
Notice that less than half a percent of food subsidies is for fruits and vegetables! This is precisely why families have trouble affording green peppers, leafy greens and tomatoes, but can get a fast-food cheeseburger for a buck.
The bad news is that the foods receiving the greatest subsidies are the very foods you should avoid or limit, according to federal nutrition guidelines. It's a perfect example of saying one thing but doing another, and then blaming the ill effects on human nature.
The Science report, which is calling for a reform of the Farm Bill, further notes:
"Most elements of the Farm Bill were not designed to promote sustainability. Subsidies are commonly criticized for distorting market incentives and making our food system overly dependent on a few grain crops mainly used for animal feed and highly processed food, with deleterious effects on the environment and human health."
A Better Way to Raise Our Food
The video above is the trailer from a full-length documentary called Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty. It offers an in-depth look into the escalating fight for food rights in the United States, including the right to purchase raw milk from small family farms.
The growing demand for raw milk is one sign that people are increasingly looking for fresh, whole foods that come from sustainable sources.
Partly in response to this consumer demand, researchers are now calling for both incremental and transformative approaches to make U.S. agriculture sustainable. This includes not only short-term goals like two-year crop rotations and reduced (or no) tillage but also a long-term transformative approach that:
" … builds on an understanding of agriculture as a complex socioecological system. Transformative change looks to whole-system redesign rather than single technological improvements. Examples of such innovative systems make up a modest, but growing, component of U.S. agriculture and include organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.
Such systems integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
This sounds very much like one emerging type of farming known as permaculture. The Permaculture Institute defines permaculture as an "ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor."
The word itself comes from "permanent agriculture" and "permanent culture," and at its foundation is developing agricultural and other systems that are interconnected and dependent on one another. In other words, they mimic the natural ecologies found in nature. The focus is not on any one element of the system, rather the focus is on the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat -- and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems.
How to Help Support Sustainable Agriculture
If you want to optimize your health, you simply must return to the basics of healthy food choices and typically this includes buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.
This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs.
Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.
If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Harbinger
Seriously? The U.S. Senate needed sixty votes to proceed with a bill to reduce the deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes and there were 48 Senators willing to vote against it?!? We are fighting two foreign wars, global climate change, an economic crisis, and we desperately need to curb the American appetite for petrol, but 48 U.S. Senators wanted to be sure big oil companies don't have to pay their fair share?!?
This is exactly what the founders meant when they spoke of "voting the rascals out". We should be paying more for gas because the cost is high. We should be paying more for food produced with petrochemicals and being transported long distances. We need to find a balance with nature and the planet so that it will continue to sustain us, but the U.S. Senate just decided big oil's profits are more important than you, me, and our children.
From Congress.org:
I read somewhere someone wrote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We The People need to seriously reexamine our consent!
This is exactly what the founders meant when they spoke of "voting the rascals out". We should be paying more for gas because the cost is high. We should be paying more for food produced with petrochemicals and being transported long distances. We need to find a balance with nature and the planet so that it will continue to sustain us, but the U.S. Senate just decided big oil's profits are more important than you, me, and our children.
From Congress.org:
| Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. 940; A bill to reduce the Federal budget deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes, and for other purposes | ||
05/17/2011 Senate Roll Call No. 72 112nd Congress, 1st Session Rejected: 52-48 (see complete tally) | ||
| By 52 yeas to 48 nays (Vote No. 72), Senate did not agree to the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. | ||
| Vote Map: Senate Roll Call No. 72 |
| 52 |
| ||
| 48 |
|
|  |
I read somewhere someone wrote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We The People need to seriously reexamine our consent!
Monday, May 23, 2011
Two News Items
Two news items caught my eye today that I wanted to share.
First, this article from the BBC World News:
Australia Climate Commission says warming risk is real
The Australian Climate Commission has warned that the world's sea levels could rise by 1m by the end of the century, much more than thought.
In its first report, the commission says the evidence that the planet is warming is stronger than ever.
It said that climate science was being attacked in the media by people with no credentials in the field.
The Australian government has welcomed the report as it seeks public support for its proposed carbon tax.
The BBC's correspondent in Sydney, Nick Bryant, says the commission's report delivers a strong rebuke to those who question that human emissions are causing global warming.
It warned that the window to take action to limit global warming was closing fast.
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
Second, was this article in The Times of India:
Tasty, healthy, but pricey: Organic mangoes make a splash in Chennai
Karthikeyan Hemalatha, TNN | May 23, 2011, 01.04am IST
CHENNAI: TS Sujatha, a housewife from RA Puram, loves mangoes. She pays a premium for these fruits at ReStore -- an organic food store in Adyar. The mangoes cost twice as much but they promise to be pesticide-free and healthier. "For me the difference is in the taste. The moment I bite into an organic mango, my mouth is filled with the taste and the flavour," says Sujatha.
Sujatha is among a growing group of consumers who prefer organic produce including mangoes. There are at least 20 shops in the city that sell organic produce exclusively. Other shops such as Pazhamuthir Nilayam in Anna Nagar have sections devoted to organic produce. Officials estimate that the organic mango market has grown from zero to 3% in the last few years. They say that the trend toward all organic food is only growing. "The awareness of healthy organic food among urban consumers was pretty low when the store was launched eight years back and is slowly picking up now," says Sandhya Srikhant from Eco-nut, an organic food store in Besant Nagar.
Sujatha, the shopper at ReStore, prefers organic mangoes not just for the taste and their promise of good health but also because her son's pediatrician has asked her not to buy mangoes from regular shops. The doctor has told her that these mangoes may have been artificially ripened and contain traces of toxic chemicals such as arsenic that will harm her son.
Eco-nut assures that they buy their organic mangoes directly from farms that have been certified organic by the Tamilnadu Organic Certification Department (TNOCD) -- a first-of-its kind government agency in India that is vested with the authority to issue the organic certificate. Some 20 other private agencies also certify organic farms. Certification is given after a rigorous process of record keeping, testing and inspection over three years.
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
First, this article from the BBC World News:
Australia Climate Commission says warming risk is real
The Australian Climate Commission has warned that the world's sea levels could rise by 1m by the end of the century, much more than thought.
In its first report, the commission says the evidence that the planet is warming is stronger than ever.
It said that climate science was being attacked in the media by people with no credentials in the field.
The Australian government has welcomed the report as it seeks public support for its proposed carbon tax.
The BBC's correspondent in Sydney, Nick Bryant, says the commission's report delivers a strong rebuke to those who question that human emissions are causing global warming.
It warned that the window to take action to limit global warming was closing fast.
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
Second, was this article in The Times of India:
Tasty, healthy, but pricey: Organic mangoes make a splash in Chennai
Karthikeyan Hemalatha, TNN | May 23, 2011, 01.04am IST
CHENNAI: TS Sujatha, a housewife from RA Puram, loves mangoes. She pays a premium for these fruits at ReStore -- an organic food store in Adyar. The mangoes cost twice as much but they promise to be pesticide-free and healthier. "For me the difference is in the taste. The moment I bite into an organic mango, my mouth is filled with the taste and the flavour," says Sujatha.
Sujatha is among a growing group of consumers who prefer organic produce including mangoes. There are at least 20 shops in the city that sell organic produce exclusively. Other shops such as Pazhamuthir Nilayam in Anna Nagar have sections devoted to organic produce. Officials estimate that the organic mango market has grown from zero to 3% in the last few years. They say that the trend toward all organic food is only growing. "The awareness of healthy organic food among urban consumers was pretty low when the store was launched eight years back and is slowly picking up now," says Sandhya Srikhant from Eco-nut, an organic food store in Besant Nagar.
Sujatha, the shopper at ReStore, prefers organic mangoes not just for the taste and their promise of good health but also because her son's pediatrician has asked her not to buy mangoes from regular shops. The doctor has told her that these mangoes may have been artificially ripened and contain traces of toxic chemicals such as arsenic that will harm her son.
Eco-nut assures that they buy their organic mangoes directly from farms that have been certified organic by the Tamilnadu Organic Certification Department (TNOCD) -- a first-of-its kind government agency in India that is vested with the authority to issue the organic certificate. Some 20 other private agencies also certify organic farms. Certification is given after a rigorous process of record keeping, testing and inspection over three years.
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)